graphify_node_details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds context about the type of metadata returned (type, source file/line, docstring, community), which is beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose error conditions, performance implications, or whether the node must exist in a built graph.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, though it could be slightly expanded with parameter details without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the schema lacks descriptions and there is no output schema shown, the description should provide more context about usage and return values. It is too brief to fully inform an AI agent about the tool's behavior and prerequisites.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain the parameters 'node' or 'as_json' at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter titles and types. For example, it does not clarify expected format of 'node' or impact of 'as_json'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool shows a node's full metadata including type, source file/line, docstring, and community. This is specific and actionable, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like graphify_neighbors or graphify_overview, which could overlap in purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or which alternative tools might be more appropriate for related tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.